I’ve been researching the ancestry of Violet Hemsley (Duncan) (Mann-Thomson) Fitzgerald (1881-1968), whose son Reginald Patrick Fitzgerald of Petworth, Sussex, Commander Royal Navy 1955-64 (1921-2002) can be found at The Peerage website, here:mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. His wife was Jane Percy Sargent (1833-1905), granddaughter of Winthrop Sargent (1753-1820), Governor of the Mississippi Territory 1798-1801. W. Butler Duncan has a Wikipedia entry:
http://www.thepeerage.com/p66131.htm#i661306
Violet’s uncle, William Butler Duncan of New York City (1830-1912), was a Scottish-American banker and railroad magnate who during the 1860s entertained the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and his younger brother the Duke of Connaught, at his
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Butler_Duncanand Genealogical Register’ Vol. I (1989), pp. 430-437.
He can also be found in the Genealogics database, here: https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00687998&tree=LEO
Duncan’s son-in-law, journalist Paul Dana (1852-1930), was the editor of the New York ‘Sun’ newspaper from 1897-1903. Duncan’s daughter, Dame Jessie Percy Butler Wilton (Duncan) Phipps (1855-1934), has an entry in ODNB:
https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q=Jessie+Phipps&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
As does the granddaughter of Dame Jessie Phipps, British actress Joyce Grenfell (1910-1979):
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31172?rskey=4guOQL&result=1
This Duncan family is covered in the article ‘Duncan late of Knossington Grange’ in Burke’s Landed Gentry 13th Edn (1921), p. 534.
It is also covered much more thoroughly in the article ‘Alexander Duncan (1805-1889) of Scotland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and England’ by Kip Sperry in the book ‘Genealogies of Rhode Island Families: From The New England Historical
None of the above sources have traced the royal ancestry of the Duncans of Providence, Rhode Island. Given the prominence of several descendants, in both the U.S. and Britain, it may make a nice addition to a subsequent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts’s‘Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants’ series.
Through his father, William Butler Duncan of New York City, his daughter Dame Jessie Phipps, and his granddaughter Joyce Grenfell, descend from two of the illegitimate sons of James V of Scotland.Parkhill House, surgeon for Honorable East India Company (b. 29 Jan. 1758; d. 4 Aug. 1832, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard), son of David Duncan of Brechin, merchant & Margaret Jamieson, and had
James V had two sons A1 and B1 (see below):
A1) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593) m. Lady Janet Kennedy (c.1542-1598), and had
A2) Lady Mary Stewart (b. c.1562) m. Patrick, 6th Lord Gray (c.1560-1611, descended from Edward III), and had
A3) Hon. Jane Gray (c.1590-1640) m. John Wemyss, 1st Earl Wemyss (1586-1649, descended from Edward III), and had
A4) Lady Elizabeth Wemyss (d. 1667) m. Sir John Aytoun of that Ilk (c.1600-1676), and had
A5) Margaret Aytoun (b. 1647) m. Sir Archibald Hope, Lord Rankeillor (1639-1706, descended from Edward III), and had
A6) Margaret Hope (1677-1751) m. Patrick Scott, 2nd of Rossie House (1664-1731), and had
A7) Archibald Scott, 3rd of Rossie House (c.1703-1773) m. Janet Scott of Benholm (b. 1703), and had
A8) PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House, Craig, Forfarshire, Scotland, b. c.1728; d. 14 Apr. 1814 Nether Dysart House, Lunan, Forfarshire, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. MARGARET FORBES (see B8 below), and had
A9) JANET SCOTT, b. 19 Jan. 1779 Rossie House, bap. 24 Jan. 1779 Craig Parish Kirk, Forfarshire; d. 5 June 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath, Forfarshire, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard; m. 31 Aug. 1799 St Mary Church, Maryton, Forfarshire, ALEXANDER DUNCAN of
A10) ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Providence, Rhode Island and of Knossington Grange, Leicestershire, banker and lawyer, b. 25 May 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath; d. 14 Oct. 1889 North House, Putney, Surrey, bur. 18 Oct. 1889 St Peter Church, Knossington; m. 11Oct. 1827 New Haven, Connecticut, SARAH BUTLER (b. 16 May 1806 Rhode Island; d. 26 Dec. 1888 7 Princes Gate, London, bur. 31 Dec. 1888 St Peter Church, Knossington), dau. of Samuel Butler of Providence, Rhode Island, merchant & master mariner (c.1755-
A11) WILLIAM BUTLER DUNCAN of Manhattan, New York, banker & railroad executive, b. 17 Mar. 1830 No. 3 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 20 June 1912 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence, Rhode Island; m. 22 Nov. 1853 NewOrleans, Louisiana, JANE PERCY SARGENT (b. 25 Aug. 1833 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, bap. 15 Apr. 1835 St Stephen Episcopal Church, Philadelphia; d. 11 Dec. 1905 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence), dau. of George Washington
B1) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, illegit. (1531-1570) m. Lady Agnes Keith (c.1544-1588, descended from James I of Scotland), and had
B2) Elizabeth Stewart, 2nd Countess of Moray (1565-1591) m. James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray (1565-1592, descended from Edward III), and had
B3) Lady Grizel Stewart (b. c.1590) m. Sir Robert Innes, 1st Baronet of That Ilk (1584-1658, descended from James IV), and had
B4) Sir Robert Innes, 2nd Baronet of That Ilk (d. 1689) m. Hon. Jean Ross (descended from James II of Scotland), and had
B5) Margaret Innes m. Hugh Rose, 14th Laird of Kilravock Castle (d. 1687), and had
B6) Margaret Rose m. Sir William Forbes, 3rd Baronet of Craigievar (1660-c.1730, descended from Edward III), and had
B7) Sir Arthur Forbes, 4th Baronet of Craigievar (1709-1773) m. 2nd Margaret Strachan, and had
B8) MARGARET FORBES, b. c.1752; d. 12 July 1839, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House (see A8 above)
A Very Merry Christmas to all.
Cheers, ------Brad
I’ve been researching the ancestry of Violet Hemsley (Duncan) (Mann-Thomson) Fitzgerald (1881-1968), whose son Reginald Patrick Fitzgerald of Petworth, Sussex, Commander Royal Navy 1955-64 (1921-2002) can be found at The Peerage website, here:mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. His wife was Jane Percy Sargent (1833-1905), granddaughter of Winthrop Sargent (1753-1820), Governor of the Mississippi Territory 1798-1801. W. Butler Duncan has a Wikipedia entry:
http://www.thepeerage.com/p66131.htm#i661306
Violet’s uncle, William Butler Duncan of New York City (1830-1912), was a Scottish-American banker and railroad magnate who during the 1860s entertained the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and his younger brother the Duke of Connaught, at his
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Butler_Duncanand Genealogical Register’ Vol. I (1989), pp. 430-437.
He can also be found in the Genealogics database, here: https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00687998&tree=LEO
Duncan’s son-in-law, journalist Paul Dana (1852-1930), was the editor of the New York ‘Sun’ newspaper from 1897-1903. Duncan’s daughter, Dame Jessie Percy Butler Wilton (Duncan) Phipps (1855-1934), has an entry in ODNB:
https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q=Jessie+Phipps&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
As does the granddaughter of Dame Jessie Phipps, British actress Joyce Grenfell (1910-1979):
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31172?rskey=4guOQL&result=1
This Duncan family is covered in the article ‘Duncan late of Knossington Grange’ in Burke’s Landed Gentry 13th Edn (1921), p. 534.
It is also covered much more thoroughly in the article ‘Alexander Duncan (1805-1889) of Scotland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and England’ by Kip Sperry in the book ‘Genealogies of Rhode Island Families: From The New England Historical
None of the above sources have traced the royal ancestry of the Duncans of Providence, Rhode Island. Given the prominence of several descendants, in both the U.S. and Britain, it may make a nice addition to a subsequent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts’s‘Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants’ series.
Through his father, William Butler Duncan of New York City, his daughter Dame Jessie Phipps, and his granddaughter Joyce Grenfell, descend from two of the illegitimate sons of James V of Scotland.Parkhill House, surgeon for Honorable East India Company (b. 29 Jan. 1758; d. 4 Aug. 1832, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard), son of David Duncan of Brechin, merchant & Margaret Jamieson, and had
James V had two sons A1 and B1 (see below):
A1) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593) m. Lady Janet Kennedy (c.1542-1598), and had
A2) Lady Mary Stewart (b. c.1562) m. Patrick, 6th Lord Gray (c.1560-1611, descended from Edward III), and had
A3) Hon. Jane Gray (c.1590-1640) m. John Wemyss, 1st Earl Wemyss (1586-1649, descended from Edward III), and had
A4) Lady Elizabeth Wemyss (d. 1667) m. Sir John Aytoun of that Ilk (c.1600-1676), and had
A5) Margaret Aytoun (b. 1647) m. Sir Archibald Hope, Lord Rankeillor (1639-1706, descended from Edward III), and had
A6) Margaret Hope (1677-1751) m. Patrick Scott, 2nd of Rossie House (1664-1731), and had
A7) Archibald Scott, 3rd of Rossie House (c.1703-1773) m. Janet Scott of Benholm (b. 1703), and had
A8) PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House, Craig, Forfarshire, Scotland, b. c.1728; d. 14 Apr. 1814 Nether Dysart House, Lunan, Forfarshire, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. MARGARET FORBES (see B8 below), and had
A9) JANET SCOTT, b. 19 Jan. 1779 Rossie House, bap. 24 Jan. 1779 Craig Parish Kirk, Forfarshire; d. 5 June 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath, Forfarshire, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard; m. 31 Aug. 1799 St Mary Church, Maryton, Forfarshire, ALEXANDER DUNCAN of
A10) ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Providence, Rhode Island and of Knossington Grange, Leicestershire, banker and lawyer, b. 25 May 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath; d. 14 Oct. 1889 North House, Putney, Surrey, bur. 18 Oct. 1889 St Peter Church, Knossington; m. 11Oct. 1827 New Haven, Connecticut, SARAH BUTLER (b. 16 May 1806 Rhode Island; d. 26 Dec. 1888 7 Princes Gate, London, bur. 31 Dec. 1888 St Peter Church, Knossington), dau. of Samuel Butler of Providence, Rhode Island, merchant & master mariner (c.1755-
A11) WILLIAM BUTLER DUNCAN of Manhattan, New York, banker & railroad executive, b. 17 Mar. 1830 No. 3 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 20 June 1912 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence, Rhode Island; m. 22 Nov. 1853 NewOrleans, Louisiana, JANE PERCY SARGENT (b. 25 Aug. 1833 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, bap. 15 Apr. 1835 St Stephen Episcopal Church, Philadelphia; d. 11 Dec. 1905 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence), dau. of George Washington
B1) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, illegit. (1531-1570) m. Lady Agnes Keith (c.1544-1588, descended from James I of Scotland), and had
B2) Elizabeth Stewart, 2nd Countess of Moray (1565-1591) m. James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray (1565-1592, descended from Edward III), and had
B3) Lady Grizel Stewart (b. c.1590) m. Sir Robert Innes, 1st Baronet of That Ilk (1584-1658, descended from James IV), and had
B4) Sir Robert Innes, 2nd Baronet of That Ilk (d. 1689) m. Hon. Jean Ross (descended from James II of Scotland), and had
B5) Margaret Innes m. Hugh Rose, 14th Laird of Kilravock Castle (d. 1687), and had
B6) Margaret Rose m. Sir William Forbes, 3rd Baronet of Craigievar (1660-c.1730, descended from Edward III), and had
B7) Sir Arthur Forbes, 4th Baronet of Craigievar (1709-1773) m. 2nd Margaret Strachan, and had
B8) MARGARET FORBES, b. c.1752; d. 12 July 1839, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House (see A8 above)
A Very Merry Christmas to all.
Cheers, ------Brad
Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:
https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/
The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.
This person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII according to the information given here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
& Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:
https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/
The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.Thank you, Leslie, for the link to the new RD900 edition. I've added it to my list of books to purchase. Hopefully I'll get it in the next couple months.
From the above link: "New immigrants include Mrs. Elizabeth Epes Chute, Mrs. Mary Epes Duncan (one of whose grandsons was Boston Brahmin family founder Epes Sargent, ancestor of John Singer Sargent)..."
Which monarch does Epes Sargent descend from? He is a direct paternal ancestor of Jane Percy (Sargent) Duncan, wife of William Butler Duncan. So it seems she also has a royal descent behind her.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
This personI'll take a look into this Henry VII descent for Chris Martin of Coldplay. Thank you for sharing the link, Leslie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII according to the information given here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
& Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.
I've finally finished adding the line you shared last year, from Edward III to Brian May (now Sir Brian May) of Queen, to my database. I'll share the additional details to it that I uncovered, in a separate post.
Thanks & Cheers, -----Brad
Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-society applicants" who are not named.
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:society applicants" who are not named.
Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-
A critical link in tis descent was discussed here a year ago, but it sort of got distracted and petered out without resolution. Basically, it involves 'correcting' a visitation pedigree naming the at Towne father-in-law as William Cheyne with theRichard Cheyne with the desired descent, with some circumstantial evidence but nothing direct to support the link. Maybe there is something additional not raised in the discussion, but as it stood there, I considered it to be wanting (and I am not more
taf
Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:dependent on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely
generation in the Leete line is Robert de Say and Alice Stratfield; the earlier generation in Epes line being Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Clare.tafMain sources seem to be St Olave Hart Street register; _Ancestry of Priscilla Baker_ (1870); Walter G. Davis on Reade and Epes; Bannerman's Kent Visitations; 1594 and 1619 Kent Visitations; Richardson's Royal Ancestry (early generations).
Generation 6 is "Sir William de Say = Sybil ____." This is quite similar to the generation 10 in the Gov. William Leete line, also "Sir Willam de Say = Sybil ____" (2:857). I guess it is another couple with the same names, since the previous
Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
taf
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent
in the Leete line is Robert de Say and Alice Stratfield; the earlier generation in Epes line being Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Clare.tafMain sources seem to be St Olave Hart Street register; _Ancestry of Priscilla Baker_ (1870); Walter G. Davis on Reade and Epes; Bannerman's Kent Visitations; 1594 and 1619 Kent Visitations; Richardson's Royal Ancestry (early generations).
Generation 6 is "Sir William de Say = Sybil ____." This is quite similar to the generation 10 in the Gov. William Leete line, also "Sir Willam de Say = Sybil ____" (2:857). I guess it is another couple with the same names, since the previous generation
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.
Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent
taf
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294
version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allowOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the
What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294
Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is theversion of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow
What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
taf
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in
version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allowOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the
Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and
So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably ofRickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek).
Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in
the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just toOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is
Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and
Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek).So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of
Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the MagnaCarta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that
Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in
the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just toOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is
and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes],
of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of GeoffreySo, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably
Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports thatAh, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the
Says.Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again
is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just toOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly
and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes],
of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of GeoffreySo, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably
Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports thatAh, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the
Says.Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these
"He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death wentto Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then
is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just toOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly
and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes],
presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife ofSo, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say,
Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports thatAh, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the
Says.Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these
to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney.""He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death went
Richard Crable [? Cralle] of Sussex, Esq., and Alexander Cheyne of Kent, and Thomas Frankleyn, to hold, &c. ..."https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover[6 Henry VI] ..."John Willecotes, Esq., was seized in demesne of the manor of Great Tywe [Tewe] of the King as of his honour of Chester, by the service of a knight's fee, which manor he had granted, long before his death, by charter produced, to
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=willecotes+crable&pg=RA14-PA6&printsec=frontcover
"William de Say of Sawbridgeworth, Herts., a baron by tenure, died early in 1272, leaving William his son and heir, who was born on 20th Nov. 1252, and a daughter Agnes, who was then already the wife of Alexnder de Cheney. The age of these childrenmakes it clear that Mary [de Say, their father's widow, who remarried to Ufford] was not their mother, as the son and heir of her second marriage was nearly 27 years younger than his supposed half-brother William de Say. Mary's parentage is wholly
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t11p14v10&view=1up&seq=365&q1=%22it%20clear%20that%20Mary%20was%20not%20their%20mother%22
So in CP's scheme, the last person in the descent should be the father of Agnes (de Say) Cheyney ...
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:Says.
Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:Says.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these
I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directlyinvestigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.
The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey
As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought processbehind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.
taf
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:these Says.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on
investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly
Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a documentThe version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and
process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought
until at last his barony passed to the husband of his sister Alice. Geoffrey de Say, son of the Geoffrey of this roll, in confirming grants to Beigham, [Kent,] speaks of the gift which his father Geoffrey de Say and his mother Aliz had made: and in the"Walkelin [Magminot/ Maminot] was apparently dead in 3 Ric. I, when the scutage of Wales due from his estate was paid by his heir, and it is suggested that he left no issue, but was succeeded by one or more of his brothers, who also died childless,tafAnd this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429
By the end of Richard's reign Geoffrey de Say had succeeded to the responsibilities of his wife's inheritance, the following entry appearing in the Pipe Roll for the ninth year under Kent 'Galfr' de Say debet roli. ios. de scutagio heredum WalkeliniMaminot quorum heres est.' Whether in fact he succeeded to the estate of joint heirs or to the debts of successive heirs does not at present appear.
Part of the Say fief in Bucks. was thus certainly derived through the Maminot alliance, but this does not account for the whole of it. Sawbridgeworth in Herts. came to him, for in the 2nd year of John he owes seven marks to have lands which had beenEarl William's; and in 1212 he is returned as holding Sabrithteswurth in chief, pertaining to the honour of Earl William de Mandevill. The fief may of course have grown after the time of Geoffrey."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039477511&view=1up&seq=229&q1=%22by%20one%20or%20more%20of%20his%20brothers%22
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:Says.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these
investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly
IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a documentThe version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey
process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought
tafAnd this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 2:35:35 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:these Says.
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on
investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly
Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a documentThe version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and
process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought
until at last his barony passed to the husband of his sister Alice. Geoffrey de Say, son of the Geoffrey of this roll, in confirming grants to Beigham, [Kent,] speaks of the gift which his father Geoffrey de Say and his mother Aliz had made: and in the"Walkelin [Magminot/ Maminot] was apparently dead in 3 Ric. I, when the scutage of Wales due from his estate was paid by his heir, and it is suggested that he left no issue, but was succeeded by one or more of his brothers, who also died childless,tafAnd this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429
Maminot quorum heres est.' Whether in fact he succeeded to the estate of joint heirs or to the debts of successive heirs does not at present appear.By the end of Richard's reign Geoffrey de Say had succeeded to the responsibilities of his wife's inheritance, the following entry appearing in the Pipe Roll for the ninth year under Kent 'Galfr' de Say debet roli. ios. de scutagio heredum Walkelini
Earl William's; and in 1212 he is returned as holding Sabrithteswurth in chief, pertaining to the honour of Earl William de Mandevill. The fief may of course have grown after the time of Geoffrey."Part of the Say fief in Bucks. was thus certainly derived through the Maminot alliance, but this does not account for the whole of it. Sawbridgeworth in Herts. came to him, for in the 2nd year of John he owes seven marks to have lands which had been
died at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior ofhttps://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039477511&view=1up&seq=229&q1=%22by%20one%20or%20more%20of%20his%20brothers%22Forgive the lack of punctuation; this whole chunk was cut and pasted from the Hathi Trust sidebar (from Farrer's _Honors and Knights' Fees_, 3:318-19).
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032992151&view=1up&seq=334&q1=%22geoffrey%20and%20alice%22%20say
The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, who
The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, whodied at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior of
Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
taf
making this newsgroup an unwieldy place to try to present it, but here's a teaser.Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
tafIt fell to me in the hereditary society to investigate the alleged Cheyne-Town link. Watch for a forthcoming article in TAG that presents what several interested parties found. There are several charts and graphics needed to explain the evidence,
We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.(Joan was the daughter of William or Richard Cheney of Sheppey); source: U350/Z34, Kent Record Office. We're not sure at what point in his research he drew this conclusion, or if this was his final conclusion.
Also, we dug through MSS collections of Thomas and Joan Town's great-great-great-great grandson antiquarian Sir Edward Dering, 1st Baronet (1598-1644). Dering was only able to conclude that “Johanna F[ilia] Will[elm]i vel Ric[ard]i Cheney de Shapeia
The stain-glassed window at Nettlestead church in Kent is further analyzed, as well as a probable connection to John Warner, of Foots Cray, Kent, Esq., MP (d. 1460), whose bio appears in the latest HoP series. Theories about the shared ancestry ofWarner's two wives through the Cralles, resulting in the need for a papal dispensation, will also be discussed.
No contemporary record was found that directly identifies the parents of Joan wife of Thomas Town. We'll have to leave it up to readers to analyze the findings and draw their own conclusions about her identity.
Nathan
We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.
If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, orwould your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be
Thanks, taf
would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to beIf you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or
Sheppey in Kent." The only John of Sheppey I've found was also Richard Cheyne's son (CIPM 25:28-29). He witnessed another person's IPM, which is the only record I've found of John. John died sometime between 1413 and 1437.Thanks, tafWilliam Cheyne was Richard Cheyne's son, so the proposed Epps royal descent would still be going through the Cheyne/Say lineage. The 1566 Vis. of Bedfordshire (HSP 21:15) offers a third alternative for Joan's father, "John Cheyney of the Isle of
Please continue the Say research. I'd love to see what you all find.
Nathan
P.S. Nathaniel Taylor is now in the role of approving genealogist for several of the royal hereditary societies in the USA. I've needed to bow out to work on another project, i.e. the Great Migration Study Project through NEHGS.
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 1:12:54 AM UTC-5, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to
If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander,
Sheppey in Kent." The only John of Sheppey I've found was also Richard Cheyne's son (CIPM 25:28-29). He witnessed another person's IPM, which is the only record I've found of John. John died sometime between 1413 and 1437.Thanks, tafWilliam Cheyne was Richard Cheyne's son, so the proposed Epps royal descent would still be going through the Cheyne/Say lineage. The 1566 Vis. of Bedfordshire (HSP 21:15) offers a third alternative for Joan's father, "John Cheyney of the Isle of
include a Clare marriage. The record does appear to say something about "Geoffrey de Say and Hawisia de Clare" granting some land in the appropriate time period. I only got the briefest look before the announcement came on to vacate the library building,Please continue the Say research. I'd love to see what you all find.
Nathan
P.S. Nathaniel Taylor is now in the role of approving genealogist for several of the royal hereditary societies in the USA. I've needed to bow out to work on another project, i.e. the Great Migration Study Project through NEHGS.Nathan, interesting about your new work for NEHGS. I assume this means you have joined Ian Watson, who produced the first vol. of the new series. Since that will undoubtedly be a huge job, it is probably good to have two working on it.
I've been hit and miss on the Say end, just noticing new things and throwing quotes to see what sticks. I did get a chance, yesterday, to briefly scan the Pyel cartulary (? or letters) that Doug Richardson cited in his rearrangement of the Say line to
102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and22 Edward I.]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
"Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto toBartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.
102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger , the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and22 Edward I.]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with
the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was
the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety.
Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex,
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:45:38 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcoverIndeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235) William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255) Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
As you say, quite different.
Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then
seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage downOverall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but
Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
tafRoberts has ...
4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John
presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife ofSo, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say,
the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reportsAh, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was
these Says.Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on
went to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney.""He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death
Richard Crable [? Cralle] of Sussex, Esq., and Alexander Cheyne of Kent, and Thomas Frankleyn, to hold, &c. ..."https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover[6 Henry VI] ..."John Willecotes, Esq., was seized in demesne of the manor of Great Tywe [Tewe] of the King as of his honour of Chester, by the service of a knight's fee, which manor he had granted, long before his death, by charter produced, to
makes it clear that Mary [de Say, their father's widow, who remarried to Ufford] was not their mother, as the son and heir of her second marriage was nearly 27 years younger than his supposed half-brother William de Say. Mary's parentage is whollyhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=willecotes+crable&pg=RA14-PA6&printsec=frontcover"William de Say of Sawbridgeworth, Herts., a baron by tenure, died early in 1272, leaving William his son and heir, who was born on 20th Nov. 1252, and a daughter Agnes, who was then already the wife of Alexnder de Cheney. The age of these children
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t11p14v10&view=1up&seq=365&q1=%22it%20clear%20that%20Mary%20was%20not%20their%20mother%22
So in CP's scheme, the last person in the descent should be the father of Agnes (de Say) Cheyney ...
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
"Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.No. They were FitzAylwin; The William here is William Aguillon, and Joan was his wife. Most sources I am finding represent Margaret's husband as Roger de Clere, rather than Clare. No Say relevance here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=BrpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45 (with summary chart on next page)
taf
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:54:17 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
"Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.No. They were FitzAylwin; The William here is William Aguillon, and Joan was his wife. Most sources I am finding represent Margaret's husband as Roger de Clere, rather than Clare. No Say relevance here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=BrpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45 (with summary chart on next page)
tafOkay, so FitzAylwin, not Aguillon, but Joan married into Aguillon.
I posted this to try to figure out if this was the same "Ralph de Clare" in the below ...
"Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ..."
However, you say it's more likely "de Clere," which I take to be different from the commital "de Clare" family.
Although, as Isabel was a Chesney/ Chesnay, I guess there was already some non-agnate connection there.
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231], ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham'
Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut
Relevant index entries seem to be ...
Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231], ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham'
Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut
Relevant index entries seem to be ...
Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231], ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham'
Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut
Relevant index entries seem to be ...
Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in
ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicutEt Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [
Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague]Relevant index entries seem to be ...
Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey deA summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de
The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
taf
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in
quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judiciumEt Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela
Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague]Relevant index entries seem to be ...
Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey deA summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de
The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
tafIs Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?
Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.
"William de la Ferte of Marden and Lavington, Wiltshire, and Alphington, Devon, married Margaret one of the sisters and coheirs of William Briwere, and died in 1216, when Pain de Chaworth had seisin of the lands of William de la Ferte which belonged tohis wife by hereditary right, she being Gundred daughter and heir of William de la Ferte and Margaret Briwere."
The heronry had been
destroyed by the father of her first husband Odo de Dammartin.
Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, . . . . However, this scenario completely fails to account for the largeamount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent.
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231], ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham'
Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 6:08:32 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in
quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judiciumEt Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela
turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book: https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445
tafThis chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in
ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicutEt Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [
Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book: https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445
taf
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 10:21:56 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 6:08:32 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Anyone care to translate the following ...?
(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in
quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judiciumEt Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela
the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book: https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445
tafThis chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcoverWho was Alice de Vere? Could she have remarried to a de Clare after 1214?
This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before theturn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover
[1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:44:58 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:Sir Fulk de Bath, knight, John de Pinchpol, Robert Flambard, and others (named).
[1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
Ancient Deeds 6:307 #C6150 (no date, because of that would be too helpful) "Grant by John Purchaz of Rikelinges to Dame Amice de Sey late the wife of Sir Geoffrey de Sey, for her service and for 40s., which she has given him beforehand, of 1½ acres of his grove in the town of Rikelinges ; rent, ld. at Easter. Witnesses :—
And later,Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to
taf
Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to
[1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to
TNA C 146/10501
"Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:06:43 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to
past; the nuns of Hengham have 12 a. by the gift of Alice de Say, sister of Robert de Ver, earl of Oxford, 50 years past, in alms of her marriage.TNA C 146/10501Continuing along this line, Farrer wrote the following in his Feudal Cambridgeshire, which extracted, unfortunately without citation, a swath of feudal records and presented them parish by parish, year by year.
"Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]
Chilford Hundred
Castle Camps and Shudy Camps with Bartlow, Nosterfield and Olmstead
1279 . . . Matilda de Crec, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, holds a messuage in Nosterfeld of the honor of Richmond in free marriage by the gift of the said Geoffrey, and his mother had that tenement by the gift of Robert de Ver, her brother, now 60 years
We next turn to Denham Parish Registers, 1539-1850, With Historical Notes and Notices, pp. 180-1bailiff of the Hundred, who came to levy the king's due from the said John in the villa of Denham. II. 173
[translation from reports of commissioners appointed in the first year of Edward I:
They say [i.e. the local jury] that John de Say miles hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred, so that they cannot do their duty in the villa of Denham ; and they say that said John and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and ill-treated John Mauveisin,
. . .Gloucester do not allow the bailiffs of the Hundred to do their duty as they ought and are wont to in certain estates (feodis) belonging to them. And so does John de Say in the villa of Denham. Also they say that said John de Say and Nicholas his brother
They say that Peter de Walpole very often (sepissime) hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred so that they cannot do their duty, by beating and ill-treating them. And the bailiffs of Badmundesfeld, the bailiffs of Lydgate, and the bailiffs of the Earl of
. . .
And from Feet of Fines.
1287. 15th year of Edward I. Margaret de Criollys versus John son of Geoffrey de Say of the manor of Denham.
This is all going to take a while . . . .
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 4:50:56 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:06:43 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to
years past; the nuns of Hengham have 12 a. by the gift of Alice de Say, sister of Robert de Ver, earl of Oxford, 50 years past, in alms of her marriage.TNA C 146/10501Continuing along this line, Farrer wrote the following in his Feudal Cambridgeshire, which extracted, unfortunately without citation, a swath of feudal records and presented them parish by parish, year by year.
"Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]
Chilford Hundred
Castle Camps and Shudy Camps with Bartlow, Nosterfield and Olmstead
1279 . . . Matilda de Crec, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, holds a messuage in Nosterfeld of the honor of Richmond in free marriage by the gift of the said Geoffrey, and his mother had that tenement by the gift of Robert de Ver, her brother, now 60
bailiff of the Hundred, who came to levy the king's due from the said John in the villa of Denham. II. 173We next turn to Denham Parish Registers, 1539-1850, With Historical Notes and Notices, pp. 180-1
[translation from reports of commissioners appointed in the first year of Edward I:
They say [i.e. the local jury] that John de Say miles hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred, so that they cannot do their duty in the villa of Denham ; and they say that said John and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and ill-treated John Mauveisin,
Gloucester do not allow the bailiffs of the Hundred to do their duty as they ought and are wont to in certain estates (feodis) belonging to them. And so does John de Say in the villa of Denham. Also they say that said John de Say and Nicholas his brother. . .
They say that Peter de Walpole very often (sepissime) hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred so that they cannot do their duty, by beating and ill-treating them. And the bailiffs of Badmundesfeld, the bailiffs of Lydgate, and the bailiffs of the Earl of
. . .
And from Feet of Fines.
1287. 15th year of Edward I. Margaret de Criollys versus John son of Geoffrey de Say of the manor of Denham.
notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.This is all going to take a while . . . .Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.
As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
_Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
[1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age;
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcoverrebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands,
Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
"In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
I think the elder John Marescall or Marshal was the Earl of Pembroke.
Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.
As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
_Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
[1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age;
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcoverrebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands,
Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
"In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:47:50 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.Not sure that they are - that is where I started my ongoing search, as they were easier to identify (more diverse names, straightforward spellings of places)
.
As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
_Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
[1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age;
the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy hishttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
"In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with
at Denham at the time of his birthhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
From CIPM:
48 Hen III, Aline le Marscale was aged 60+ or 90+, sister and heiress of Isabel de Cressi
53 Hen III, ipm Aline Marescall, heir John, son of Sir William le Marescall, aged 12
55 Hen III, inquest determining if Alice la Maresshale had enfeoffed her deceased daughter Alice de Carhou. John, son of Sir WIlliam le Mareschal is her heir
11 Edw I, ipm John le Marscal, heir William his son, aged 5 on Feast of St Michael, 10 Edw I; or aged 5 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Autumn, 10 Edw. I.
26 Edw I, proof of age of William, son and heir of Jn, aged 21 on 6th day before feast of St Michael, 26 Ed I, born at Denham; godfather was a Walter de Say, godmother Petronilla de Say; Lady Amice de Say, "with whom the heir's mother was in company"
would have been born in the 1170s(+/-), or if 60+, in the 1200 decade, more or less, so at least two and maybe three generations before John.This gives us John, ca. 1257-in or bef.1283, which puts him in the same generation as William, son of William de Say, so if this is the family from which Sibyl derived, she would be of the same generation as Sir William, father of John. Aline, if 90+,
very hard to deduce where Sibyl would go, assuming she even belonged to this line (which does seem to have been the case).Carthew, in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley, discusses this descent.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71
See also CP, under Marshall. As presented there, teh line wuld involve long chronology, with a man active in 1197 (as an apparent adult, hence born in or bef. 1176) being grandfather of a man born 81 years later in 1257. This long chronology makes it
tafSurr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ... https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=333&q1=%22de%20say%22
Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=340&q1=%22de%20say%22
K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=465&q1=%22de%20say%22
Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=486&q1=%22de%20say%22
Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ... https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22
... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=580&q1=%22de%20say%22
Also mention of Gileberto de Say and wife Matilda, and maybe others.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.Not sure that they are - that is where I started my ongoing search, as they were easier to identify (more diverse names, straightforward spellings of places)
.
As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
_Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
[1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age;
the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy hishttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
"In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with
at Denham at the time of his birthhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
From CIPM:
48 Hen III, Aline le Marscale was aged 60+ or 90+, sister and heiress of Isabel de Cressi
53 Hen III, ipm Aline Marescall, heir John, son of Sir William le Marescall, aged 12
55 Hen III, inquest determining if Alice la Maresshale had enfeoffed her deceased daughter Alice de Carhou. John, son of Sir WIlliam le Mareschal is her heir
11 Edw I, ipm John le Marscal, heir William his son, aged 5 on Feast of St Michael, 10 Edw I; or aged 5 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Autumn, 10 Edw. I.
26 Edw I, proof of age of William, son and heir of Jn, aged 21 on 6th day before feast of St Michael, 26 Ed I, born at Denham; godfather was a Walter de Say, godmother Petronilla de Say; Lady Amice de Say, "with whom the heir's mother was in company"
This gives us John, ca. 1257-in or bef.1283, which puts him in the same generation as William, son of William de Say, so if this is the family from which Sibyl derived, she would be of the same generation as Sir William, father of John. Aline, if 90+,would have been born in the 1170s(+/-), or if 60+, in the 1200 decade, more or less, so at least two and maybe three generations before John.
Carthew, in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley, discusses this descent.very hard to deduce where Sibyl would go, assuming she even belonged to this line (which does seem to have been the case).
https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71
See also CP, under Marshall. As presented there, teh line wuld involve long chronology, with a man active in 1197 (as an apparent adult, hence born in or bef. 1176) being grandfather of a man born 81 years later in 1257. This long chronology makes it
taf
Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover
Surr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ...
Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...
K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...
Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...
Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ... https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22
... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcoverThis is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
Okay, so there was a son Geoffrey in addition to the William b. ca. 1252/3.https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcoverThis is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 10:50:43 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:something completely different.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
There does seem to have been, but that was not my intent here. This was a mistake on my part - I meant to identify this Geoffrey as the future first Lord Say, son of William, son of the William who married Sibyl and Mary, but somehow ended up typingOkay, so there was a son Geoffrey in addition to the William b. ca. 1252/3.https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcoverThis is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.
22 Edward I.]102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:and 22 Edward I.]
102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.
Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ...
"Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. ... [undated]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:01:41 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:and 22 Edward I.]
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.Not me.
Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ...
"Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. ... [undated]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.Without a date, I don't even know where to start with this one. There were other Say lines out there and I have been intentionally excluding the ones I know not to be relevant to this descent.
taf
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:46:37 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,185 |